Supreme Court Allows Prosecutors & Govt Advocates To Provisionally Appear For Chhattisgarh Civil Judge Exam Without Enrolment Condition
The interim relief is confined to the petitoners who approached the Court.
The Supreme Court on Friday passed an interim order permitting certain petitioners who have approached it, who are working as Public Prosecutors and Government Advocates, to provisionally appear for the Preliminary examination of the Chhattisgarh Judicial Service for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) which is scheduled to take place on Sunday.The Court asked the Chhattisgarh...
The Supreme Court on Friday passed an interim order permitting certain petitioners who have approached it, who are working as Public Prosecutors and Government Advocates, to provisionally appear for the Preliminary examination of the Chhattisgarh Judicial Service for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) which is scheduled to take place on Sunday.
The Court asked the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) to permit the petitioners, who possess the requisite qualification, to appear in the exam without insisting on the condition that they must remain enrolled as Advocates as on the date of advertisement.
The petitioners were not issued admit cards since the exam notification mandated that the candidates must be Advocates enrolled with the State Bar Council as on the date of advertisement. The persons who get appointed as Public Prosecutors/Government Advocates are required by the rules to suspend their enrolment. Therefore, the State Public Service Commission (CGPSC) did not issue them admit cards, saying that they are not enrolled.
Since the Chhattisgarh High Court did not grant them relief, the candidates approached the Supreme Court. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria passed the interim order while issuing notice on the Special Leave Petitions filed by the candidates.
"As an interim order, we direct that the CGPSC shall permit such of the petitioners who are possessing the requisite qualification except the one provided under Clause 3(iv)(e), i.e enrolled as an Advocate under the Advocates Act 1961. However, we clarify that the appearance of the petitioners in the examinations will not create any equities in their favour," the Court observed.
The Court also directed the PSC not to insist on the condition of 3-year practice since the exam notification was issued before the judgment mandating the 3-year condition was delivered.
Some petitioners, who are law graduates, are working as Government Servants. The Court, during the hearing, asked them if they could appear for the exam if they had not enrolled at all. The CJI orally asked if they can be treated at par with those working as Prosecutors and Government Advocates.
Ultimately, the bench agreed to consider the matter and passed the interim order.
During the hearing today, Sr Advocate Vipin Sanghi, appearing for a few of the petitioners, submitted that condition caused hardship candidates who are law graduates and are working in government employment.
At this juncture, the CJI verbally observed that lawyers who enrolled, later became government counsels, and suspended their license are in a different position from those who never enrolled and directly took up government jobs.
"The candidates who are lawyers, who got enrolled as lawyers and thereafter got selected as Public Prosecutor/ government counsel and have suspended their sanad (license) would stand on a different footing than candidates who have never enrolled and directly taken employment"
Sr Advocate Uttara Babbar, appearing for some of the petitioners(who are prosecutors/govt counsel), argued that the present order is contrary to the settled decision in Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik , which held that Public Prosecutors, Law Officers, and Government Lawyers have to be considered as advocates.
On September 16, the Chhattisgarh High Court declined to interfere with the decision of the State Public Service Commission (CGPSC) not to issue admit cards for the Preliminary examination of the Chhattisgarh Judicial Service to the candidates, who are working as Asst Public Prosecutors, whose enrolled with the Bar Council was suspended at the time of issuance of the recruitment advertisement, i.e. 23.12.2024.
Sr Advocates Utara Babbar and Vipin Sanghi appeared for the petitioners. The plea was filed with the assistance of AOR Prakhar Srivastava.
Background
The contention of the petitioners was that, as per the Supreme Court ruling in All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 601 (the 'AIJA judgment'), the Civil Judge examinations, for which the recruitment processes were already underway at the time of delivery of the Apex Court judgment, must continue as per the rules applicable on the date of advertisement/notification.
Notably, the Chhattisgarh Government by a Gazette Notification dated 05.07.2024 issued by the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs substituted Rule 7(1)(c) of the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 and accordingly, it required a candidate to not only possess a degree of Law from any recognized University, but also to have enrolment as an Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 in order to apply for the Judicial Service.
Being aggrieved by the official notification for holding of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination-2024, which was issued on 23.12.2024 by the State Public Service Commission in conformity with the aforesaid substituted rule, a petition was filed impugning the same. Pursuant to a brief hearing, the High Court had entertained the petition by finding the mandatory Bar enrolment requirement to be bad in law.
In its order dated 22.01.2025, the Court had held that the scope of candidates for participation should not be narrowed down by imposing 'unwarranted conditions', rather more candidates should be allowed to participate so that better qualified candidates may be selected.
Further, purely as an interim measure, the Commission was then ordered to permit the candidates to fill their online forms even if they are not enrolled as an Advocate. The said changes were directed to be notified to the aspirants by way of a corrigendum to be published in widely circulated newspapers and other forms of media.
Pursuant to such order of the High Court, the State Public Service Commission had brought in corrigendum on 23.01.2025 to the earlier recruitment notification dated 23.12.2024, whereby non-enrolled candidates were allowed to submit their online forms till 23.02.2025.
The Preliminary examination of the Chhattisgarh Judicial Service-2024 was originally scheduled on May 18, 2025. However, the same was put on hold by the High Court by its order dated April 07, 2025, in order to wait for the outcome of the AIJA case which was then pending before the Apex Court.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in AIJA case on May 20, 2025 which mandated minimum three-years practice as an Advocate as an eligibility condition for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) through State Judicial Services. In para 90 of the judgment, the Court had observed –
“Needless to state that all such recruitment processes which have been kept in abeyance, in view of the pendency of the present proceedings, shall proceed in accordance with the Rules which were applicable on the date of advertisement/notification.”
However, the CGPSC did not issue admit cards for the Preliminary examination, scheduled to be held on 21.09.2025, to the registered candidates who did not possess Bar enrolment on the date of advertisement for the recruitment, i.e. 23.12.2024.
Being aggrieved by non-issuance of the admit cards, which were issued to the enrolled candidates only on 11.09.2025, the petitioners approached the High Court.
The High Court on September 16 dismissed their petitions, observing that the PSC's action was not arbitrary.
Case : URWASHI KOUR AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH | Diary No. 53495/2025
Click Here To Read/Download Order